Re: [ARSCLIST] Cataloging: Libraries and private collectors

[Karl Miller <lyaa071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 11 May 2005, Steven Smolian wrote:

> Institutions and collectors require catalogs that differ somewhat; the
fields used most intensively may well be at polar opposites.  A discussion
of some may lead to a better understanding of what each group expects from
its catalog and, perhaps, inaccurate assumptions, based on their own needs,
about why the other group wants what it wants.

If collectors wanted to send me a list of what
interested them, I would be happy to compile a list of requested fields.

It would seem to me that the needs of archives could differ from the needs
of "libraries." I put libraries in quotes because, even if
the functionalism and organization of the two differ, I am not sure I have
a good understanding of the function of a library these days as they seem
to be more and more about digital information delivery and that archives
are for things.

> A library's record cataloging has to conform to the cataloging of the
same selection as printed music,

Is this not due to the limitations of most search engines? and/or the
construction of the basic bibliographic record? which in turn, has to
integrate in one huge catalog with books, periodicals, maps, photos and
everything else in the library...and perhaps the world of information
beyond, which is not as structured in its representation in digital form?

> A collector must be able to tell if he has a particular item and, if so,
in what condition, if it is an original or a copy and, if the latter, who
made the copy.  The information has to match that in dealer's catalogs and
on-line listings (made by people who know what they are doing.)

When you write "know what they are doing," do you mean "following some
rules and/or format?"

> There is also the matter of entry simplification.  To meet its in-house
needs, an institution has to follow the second version of the Anglo-American
Cataloging Rules (the third version is deep in draft.)  The private
collector may be satisfied with a simpler form of listing, as used in the
old Schwann and Gramophone catalogs.

An institution submitting MARC records is supposed to follow AACR 2. The
can, of course, resort to whatever other sort of listing or finding aid
they like.

By the way, I heard via the grapevine that the draft of AACR 3 has been
scrapped. Anyone with more information on that?

As for Schwann and Gramophone...I also recall how helpful the Phonolog
was. For me, it was a guide to the music card catalog for beginners and
I used it often when I was doing music reference...for some 25 years.

> Collectors use their catalogs to assemble programs, to be played back or
copied. This requires a much easier-to-eye scan list of composer, title and
performer entries that those that library catalog "short lists"
create.

Yet some collectors include more information than formal cataloging rules
require...I am reminded of one field in one collector's digitized catalog.
It had the heading IL and featured numbers 1-10. It turned out that "IL"
stood for "I like," rated 1-10. Not exactly information listed on the
container.

> These are a couple of the underlying issues.  There are many more, of
course.  Feel free to contribute here.

I guess the underlying issue for me...is there any way to submit or
address these ideas to those who are enabled to make use of these ideas?
and I pray, change some things?

Karl